By Ellen Eisenberg

By Ellen Eisenberg, Executive Director of The Pennsylvania Institute for Instructional Coaching (PIIC)

Monday, December 14, 2015

The ASCD Express, Volume 11, issue 7 talks about mentoring for new teachers. In theory,
that’s a very effective practice. But are they the only ones who need
mentoring?

To me, that
statement means that only novice teachers need the support to apply their new
learnings. I disagree… we want all practitioners to go from good to great and
to do that with the support of a skilled, experienced practitioner who
understands adult learning, collaboration, collective problem-solving, and
critical thinking. And, to do that in a non-evaluative environment where
formative assessment and self-assessment are the norm and making mistakes is a
rite of passage without fear of evaluation.

The article
suggests that “… creating mentor programs to support new teachers can help them
adjust to more than just procedures… and to help them become more confident” in
their teaching. Wow… why wouldn’t we want to ensure that every staff member has
the benefit of working with a trusted colleague?

In this
article, the terms “mentor” and “coach” are actually interchangeable. Here,
“mentor” is what we would call a “coach.” I, however, see them as two different
roles with different responsibilities but both necessary for all learning
communities, not just newly hired staff. Both share common qualities: being
nonjudgmental, providing needed support, willing to work with different skill
sets, and modeling reflective practice. While both are long-term relationships,
coaching may be more performance driven while mentoring may be more development
driven. Coaches tend to address the “needs of the day” in working with teachers
and try to find ways to problem solve. Mentors tend to focus on being a
facilitator and silent partner. Both need to ask essential questions so that
the learning is with, not for and both need to provide timely and
specific feedback for continuous improvement.

I’ve never
met a teaching colleague who didn’t want to better his/her craft. What a shift
in education if every teacher and administrator could work with a coach who
works with a mentor to support the learning without risk of failure!

So, what do you think… should only
new teachers have the benefit of a coach/mentor?

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

In the January 2016 issue of Educational Leadership, author Martha Sandstead compares working as
an instructional coach to “cutting watermelons.” (If you are a former English
teacher, you know that using a metaphor is a powerful way to illustrate a point
that may seem like such an unlikely comparison at first glance.)

Ms. Sandstead reiterates what PIIC has espoused for quite
some time… establishing relationships with colleagues is developmental and
situational. She uses the metaphor of cutting watermelons as a way to help
instructional coaches understand that the process of cutting the watermelon is almost
more important than the pieces of watermelon offered to the picnic guests… don’t
try to tell the host that s/he is cutting the watermelon incorrectly; engage in
a conversation and explore the reasons why the watermelon is being cut in just
that way.

She continues by reminding us that coaches “…begin
relationships with teachers and work with them to discover their potential and
bring about change in a way that respects them as professionals and as people.”
The teaching colleagues with whom the coaches work have already established
many things about their professional practice. The coach’s role is to help his/her
colleagues identify those practices that are strong and those that need to be
strengthened. They need to meet their colleagues “where they are” and talk
about practices “as they are.” Those conversations morph into the heart of teaching
and learning and how teachers can meet the needs of a diverse population.
Effective coaching is neither a deficit model nor a “fix-it” model; teachers do
not need to be “fixed.” They need an experienced, non-evaluative ear so that
they can share their ideas about practice; teachers need their voices heard and
their expertise validated.

“Being a coach is not about being the expert who knows it
all; it’s about immersing yourself in teachers’ classrooms so you can learn
about the work they have created and who they are as professionals” says Ms.
Sandstead. I couldn’t agree more! Coaches need to be active listeners,
supportive colleagues, and respectful learning partners.

What I don’t quite agree with in the article is the
“Coaching from the Copy Room” idea. Coaches need to make time and not find time
to meet with colleagues, learn about their teaching philosophies, goals, needs,
and their “wish fors” as they move ahead in their own practice. While a quick
“copy room” conversation may result in a definite time for the next meeting, it
shouldn’t be the place where practice is discussed. Those conversations need to
be confidential and deliberate, not “off the cuff” and freelance. Coaches need
to help teachers think more deeply about their practices which is much more
than just a quick conversation. Quick conversations are a start but they are
not the “end all” or the optimum way to engage in professional conversations.

How can developing strong
relationships make a difference in your coaching?